Pirelli 2013

[Cam]

For the sake of completeness - here's what a full Tyre test - as it should be run - looks like:

here's a public quote to the media on expectations for the tyre test:

"The construction is pretty well locked," he said. "There are a couple of minor modifications that will happen between now and February. In terms of compounds, it will give us the chance to understand our grading of what a medium and a soft tyre is.

"We read what was used by the previous tyre supplier during the season, but there is no substitute for getting onto a circuit yourself and getting the feedback from the drivers. November 18th 2010

All teams present and lap times shown - along with number of laps completed:

1. Felipe Massa -- Ferrari -- 1m40.170s -- 94
2. Sebastian Vettel -- Red Bull -- 1m40.500s -- 77
3. Gary Paffett -- McLaren -- 1m40.874s -- 94
4. Kamui Kobayashi -- Sauber -- 1m40.950s -- 83
5. Robert Kubica -- Renault -- 1m41.032s -- 39
6. Rubens Barrichello -- Williams -- 1m41.425s -- 91
7. Paul di Resta -- Force India -- 1m41.615s -- 20
8. Nico Rosberg -- Mercedes -- 1m41.778s -- 81
9. Jaime Alguersuari -- Toro Rosso -- 1m42.019s -- 71
10. Adrian Sutil -- Force India -- 1m42.859s -- 20
11. Timo Glock -- Virgin -- 1m44.124s -- 78
12. Heikki Kovalainen -- Lotus -- 1m44.686s -- 88
13. Pastor Maldonado -- Hispania -- 1m45.728s -- 83

November 19th 2010

And here's a wrap after the test ends:

"I would say that we have very good indications for the compound choices," said Hembery. "After this test and the work we do in Bahrain next month we're going to have a pretty good idea of the theoretical choices that we should be taking to each circuit. November 20th 2010

Now compare this to the Merc test - and probably also the Ferrari test. Big difference.

[bhall]

A 'normal' W04 blurred:
http://i78.servimg.com/u/f78/14/79/55/26/mclare10.jpg


Nah, we need a better angle. this one is misleading

Good idea. But, I don't think any comparison photo is going to change the fact that the image taken from the "secret" test is a lost cause.

[FoxHound]

Interesting that Hembrey was quite happy with a 3 year old car pre-contract.

"We need a baseline that we can trust so that we can start building information," he continued. "Maybe we can convince the teams that a three-year-old car, or something like that might be more suitable alternative if they can all agree on which brand it is. June 24th 2010

Are we even at a pre contract stage? Pirelli are 3 years in on their F1 journey.
How can you say Hembrey was happy to use it in 2010 would mean he would be happy to use it on 2013?
You are ignoring the current tyre specs, the safety issues, the teams complaining and the press backlash.

As for him saying he was happy to use a GP2 car, he did say it was "a good starting point" back in 2010.
You are attempting to discredit Paul Hembrey, and his explanation of the tyre test.
If you are going to do this, please factor in all current scenarios. Because it looks like you are digging up any old bit of mud to fling at him to suit your argument.

[turbof1]

Cam, I kind of have to back foxhound on this one. I think those comments from Paul were more about finding a starting point and inexperience. Last year they started to be increasingly aware that they it'll be difficult to get it spot on with increased tyre wear. That is in contrast with 2011, where that was easy to accomplish as it was the first post-bridgestone year. Making tyres that are less enduring then bridgestones isn't difficult and can be done with a gp2 car. But developing ever more tyre wearing tyres, because the teams constantly undo the work put in by pirelli, without causing unwanted issues, that's a big challenge. I can totally understand the evolution in Pirelli's thought pattern and is only logical.

The useage of a 2013 car... . I don't know about that one. If they really tried out 2014 tyres it shouldn't matter which car you use, because no existing car is relevant today. Then again, apperently it was Mercedes their choice to do so. On that regard responsibility and clarification belongs to the team.

[Cam]

I disagree. Pirelli have, what, 140 odd years of tyre experience and plenty of that in racing. The point was not about digging up dirt (FH you're so negative, smile mate and try adding something other than just complaining), it was to demonstrate that their experience in racing told them a 3 year old car would be fine, assumingly because their experts would bridge the gap. If they had no idea F1 cars would evolve, what were they thinking?

This goes towards how they react and consider situations. There's a pattern. If we all stop and look you'll see it.

[FoxHound]

If they had no idea F1 cars would evolve, what were they thinking?

Big changes coming up?
At the end of the day everyone(teams, suppliers) involved in F1 are involved in it for their own ends. Pirelli have their requirements, of which they have certain clauses written in to their contract to provide a show/tyres.
If this contravenes the sporting regs, then it is a matter for FOM/Bernie and the FIA to sort out as it's a fault that lies between them.

We will find out in the next 48 hours, as Todt is apparently deciding from evidence provided by both Mercedes and Pirelli.

But we must not forget the actual facts that we do know.

That is both Charlie Whiting and Bernie Ecclestone where informed of the test, and that the FIA sent delegates to the test. In which capacity, none of us can say. But present they where.
32 componds where tested.
1 could have been relevant, but is no longer as it will not be run due to the teams not managing unanimous decision.
All tyres where unmarked.
1000kms was achived over 3 days, translating to roughly 7 laps per compound.
The test was conducted and orchestrated by Pirelli.
According to Senior management of Mercedes, they proceeded under guidance from the FIA and Pirelli with emails as the choice communication between all parties.

From all this, we have had speculation about tailored tyres for Mercedes, to a Turbo V6 being used in anger for the first time, to a 2014 spec front wing.

I cannot disprove any of it, as I'm not privy to the facts further than what I have written above.
But I do know, if they where running with all of the above, and FIA delegates where present, and it was green lit by the powers that be....who's to blame?

As I mentioned before, I think there is alot more to this than meets the eye. There is a commercial clause that contravenes a sporting rule. This does not indicate anyone cheated, it merely indicates the people(FIA/FOM) in power have no idea what the other is doing.

[turbof1]

I think it is better to agree to disagree on this one. You made good points, but just as mine, it's not convincing. Neither does it look like we'll get to that; not until we've seen the complete picture, if we as fans ever get to see that.

I just feel we shouldn't be so harsh on Pirelli. Aside from all rules and politics, they try to make it work in f1.

[Richard]

I’m not sure all these quotes from Hembrey help. All it shows is that people are fallible, circumstances change over time, and quotes can be taken out of context. Humbrey simply messed up on the comms and has spent the last 10 days trying to backtrack. He’s trying to post rationalise an awkward situation that he would have avoided in hindsight. That’s just clumsy rather than malicious.

Anyway, leave the personality out of it and lets focus on what actually happened in 2013.

The concern with the Merc & Ferrari tests are that all teams were invited to the previous Lotus test but not the recent tests. Pirelli were explicit at the Lotus test about independent data capture. All teams could watch what was going on. There were equal debriefs to all teams. None of that happened with Merc and Ferrari.

The Merc test is complicated by the use of 2013 car, race drivers and race pit crew. We don’t know if they gained an unfair advantage because other team didn’t know what was going on.

If we were being far fetched we could assume an uber-conspiracy between Brawn, Todt and Humbrey. We could say Merc ran full tests with varying setups, lots of new parts, and full knowledge of the tyres. However a pragmatic mind says that is unlikely. Also Pirelli need a common baseline so changes to the car would make the tyre data really hard to interpret. (In the Lotus test they were only allowed to change ride height for dry and wet weather tyres).

What we do know is that race drivers got more track time. As a bystander, to not use test drivers seems a little silly. After all, one of those drivers has publicly said he needs more track time to get used to the car. I’m sure Hamilton would love to have more time on track (even in car with unknown tyres) rather than a simulator. We don’t know if he could see his telemetry.

If there is going to be some conjecture, one can imagine that a team with a dodgy alternator or over heating KERS might switch to an updated version for durability testing. I’m sure RB would have loved that opportunity after their KERS problems this year. Those problems show that bench testing isn’t perfect, parts need to run on track. Of course if the car had been in FIA parc ferme after the race then we’d have transparency that components were not switched - but we have nothing to say if that happened or not.

You could also imagine that the McLaren pit crew of 2011 would have loved 3 days of track testing – especially if they tried out subtly different procedures or switched personnel around.


So what all this comes down to is whether the teams and FIA are satisfied there was enough transparency. My personal opinion is that the stark contrast with Lotus tests shows that Pirelli messed up on transparency. It’s nirvana for them to have a current car so I can see why they pushed for it. I don’t know why they weren’t open about it. Maybe they were worried about seeming to stretch the rules so tried to keep it quiet. Of course in hindsight honesty would have been the best policy.

Merc’s defence is that they were simply doing what was asked and thought they had FIA approval. They can claim that Pirelli were responsible for comms & transparency.

The FIA’s defence is that they told Pirelli to provide the opportunity to all teams. They can use the Lotus test as the precedent and say they expected Pirelli to go about the tests with equal transparency.

Pirelli’s defence is that they got approval from the FIA about the 2013 car. Where they fall down is with the transparency bit. You can be sure involving other teams would have given greater scrutiny of the arrangements. There would have been witnesses. Maybe the other teams would have insisted on test drivers and a 2012 car ( ie nearly new but not current).

In a fairytale word were everything is rosie (cue CBeebies!), the outcome might be to give all teams except Merc the same opportunity at Silverstone. The increased visibility would make it hard for a team to try a new KERS battery (or similar). At least a test for other teams would let the FIA be seen to try to rebalance the situation.

I’d also expect explicit new rules on tyre testing with a published schedule, use of Pirelli test drivers, independent pit crew, secure data capture, and witnesses from other teams. There might be FIA parc ferme conditions. The FIA would check that the test engine & gearbox were the same spec as the previous race.

[lotus7]

, the outcome might be to give all teams except Merc the same opportunity at Silverstone.

In the mean time Merc had the benefit of the test for 2 races , how can that be equalised as the same opporunity ? Tell Merc drivers to only use left hand for those 2 races ( sarcasm mode)

[Richard]

Indeed, but it's impossible to put the genie back into the bottle. It's impossible to fully equalise past events, hence "seen to try".

[Pierce89]

If they had no idea F1 cars would evolve, what were they thinking?

Big changes coming up?
At the end of the day everyone(teams, suppliers) involved in F1 are involved in it for their own ends. Pirelli have their requirements, of which they have certain clauses written in to their contract to provide a show/tyres.
If this contravenes the sporting regs, then it is a matter for FOM/Bernie and the FIA to sort out as it's a fault that lies between them.

We will find out in the next 48 hours, as Todt is apparently deciding from evidence provided by both Mercedes and Pirelli.

But we must not forget the actual facts that we do know.

That is both Charlie Whiting and Bernie Ecclestone where informed of the test, and that the FIA sent delegates to the test. In which capacity, none of us can say. But present they where.
32 componds where tested.
1 could have been relevant, but is no longer as it will not be run due to the teams not managing unanimous decision.
All tyres where unmarked.
1000kms was achived over 3 days, translating to roughly 7 laps per compound.
The test was conducted and orchestrated by Pirelli.
According to Senior management of Mercedes, they proceeded under guidance from the FIA and Pirelli with emails as the choice communication between all parties.

From all this, we have had speculation about tailored tyres for Mercedes, to a Turbo V6 being used in anger for the first time, to a 2014 spec front wing.

I cannot disprove any of it, as I'm not privy to the facts further than what I have written above.
But I do know, if they where running with all of the above, and FIA delegates where present, and it was green lit by the powers that be....who's to blame?

As I mentioned before, I think there is alot more to this than meets the eye. There is a commercial clause that contravenes a sporting rule. This does not indicate anyone cheated, it merely indicates the people(FIA/FOM) in power have no idea what the other is doing.

Can you at least agree that any track running in a current car should be somewhat beneficial? There are also rumours that they ran new parts, but you say Pirelli wouldn't allow it. I say, Pirelli isn't testing for outright performance but only to make suitable tires,so it shouldn't matter. Also, I figure Pirelli was so happy to get 3 days in a current car, that maybe they give Merc some time to pursue their own agenda, but of course, they can't admit this now. Overall, even though Pirelli's contract allow them some testing, the sporting regs ay no team should do ANY in season testing in a current car. I don't believe Pirelli's contract would override the requirement for teams to follow the sporting regs.

As for Ferrari, I'd say a test run by the guys that restore old F1 cars, run in an old F1 car, and with a driver that doesn't race for the Scuderia is nothing more than a red herring.

Edit: I've my qoute tags in the correct place but on my screen its not showing up as quotes. Is everyone else seeing normal quotes?

[lebesset]

If they had no idea F1 cars would evolve, what were they thinking?

Big changes coming up?
At the end of the day everyone(teams, suppliers) involved in F1 are involved in it for their own ends. Pirelli have their requirements, of which they have certain clauses written in to their contract to provide a show/tyres.
If this contravenes the sporting regs, then it is a matter for FOM/Bernie and the FIA to sort out as it's a fault that lies between them.

We will find out in the next 48 hours, as Todt is apparently deciding from evidence provided by both Mercedes and Pirelli.

But we must not forget the actual facts that we do know.

That is both Charlie Whiting and Bernie Ecclestone where informed of the test, and that the FIA sent delegates to the test. In which capacity, none of us can say. But present they where.
32 componds where tested.
1 could have been relevant, but is no longer as it will not be run due to the teams not managing unanimous decision.
All tyres where unmarked.
1000kms was achived over 3 days, translating to roughly 7 laps per compound.
The test was conducted and orchestrated by Pirelli.
According to Senior management of Mercedes, they proceeded under guidance from the FIA and Pirelli with emails as the choice communication between all parties.

From all this, we have had speculation about tailored tyres for Mercedes, to a Turbo V6 being used in anger for the first time, to a 2014 spec front wing.

I cannot disprove any of it, as I'm not privy to the facts further than what I have written above.
But I do know, if they where running with all of the above, and FIA delegates where present, and it was green lit by the powers that be....who's to blame?

As I mentioned before, I think there is alot more to this than meets the eye. There is a commercial clause that contravenes a sporting rule. This does not indicate anyone cheated, it merely indicates the people(FIA/FOM) in power have no idea what the other is doing.

Can you at least agree that any track running in a current car should be somewhat beneficial? There are also rumours that they ran new parts, but you say Pirelli wouldn't allow it. I say, Pirelli isn't testing for outright performance but only to make suitable tires,so it shouldn't matter. Also, I figure Pirelli was so happy to get 3 days in a current car, that maybe they give Merc some time to pursue their own agenda, but of course, they can't admit this now. Overall, even though Pirelli's contract allow them some testing, the sporting regs ay no team should do ANY in season testing in a current car. I don't believe Pirelli's contract would override the requirement for teams to follow the sporting regs.

As for Ferrari, I'd say a test run by the guys that restore old F1 cars, run in an old F1 car, and with a driver that doesn't race for the Scuderia is nothing more than a red herring.

Edit: I've my qoute tags in the correct place but on my screen its not showing up as quotes. Is everyone else seeing normal quotes?

32 compounds were tested ? where did that come from ? you say you are privy to the facts ...source ?
pirelli stated that 12 different casings were tested , one using kevlar , and that the same tread compound was used for all tests , that being a compound never used in races and not intended to be used in 2013 or 2014

[turbof1]

Paul Hembery made a statement in Monaco where he implied they used 32 different tyres, but a latter press release by Pirelli claims 12 different compounds.

I think that those were just 32 sets of tyres tested over the 1000km, and those 32 tyres were divided over 12 different compounds.

Like Richard Leeds said (all hail, wise one!), they messed up their communication to the public.

[lotus7]

Indeed, but it's impossible to put the genie back into the bottle. It's impossible to fully equalise past events, hence "seen to try".

Yea , I suppose a kid stealing an ice cream only for himself in summer and then stealing some more but in mid winter for the other kids who did not get any in summer, doesn't equalise things , neither does it make stealing a good deed .

[lebesset]

Paul Hembery made a statement in Monaco where he implied they used 32 different tyres, but a latter press release by Pirelli claims 12 different compounds.

I think that those were just 32 sets of tyres tested over the 1000km, and those 32 tyres were divided over 12 different compounds.

Like Richard Leeds said (all hail, wise one!), they messed up their communication to the public.

http://www.planet-f1.com/driver/18227/8 ... r-any-team

seems a pretty clear statement to me ; not much point testing new structures using different tread compounds